[BRAH]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

8)

_____________

[Canadian_Mind]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

LOL.

Well if he gets criminally charged with fraud they you have a case. Those who have resigned over lying were caught lying under oath or lying about serious improprieties, not about about empty boasting of fake accomplishments in a public speech made to foreigners overseas.

Yes he's probably going to have a difficult time earning the respect of the troops. He's not the first nor the last MND who will not be respected by the troops. I don't think Kim Campbell, David Collenette, Art Eggleton, or Bill Graham were loved either. Pretty sure the soldiers are not going to go on strike. Being a professional, especially in the military, means working with and following orders of superiors even when you think they are total assholes.

It can be argued that lying to a foreign country causes discredit to our own country, which in my mind is as grevious as lying under oath.

Soldiers don't get to go on strike. They don't have freedom of speech either. Given the privately shared reactions of my former colleagues, I am sure they would strike in this instance, if they could. As it is, there is getting to be enough noise privately that the CDS, Trudope's favourite pet in the military, is going to clamp down on it and start having troops charged for rightfully expressing their greviences.

[BeaverFever]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Someone said we wouldn't be asking for Mr. Sajjian's resignations if he was a Conservative. Well allow me to point out that, the last Conservative Minister of National Defense who screwed up like this man did had the decency to "RESIGN". Anybody else remember one Mr. Robert C. Coates and his visit to a peeler bar? An infraction I'd consider much less heinous than stealing someone else's valour.

Other people are saying we're holding this person to an unrealistically high standard because he's a Liberal. Well sorry, but once again you're wrong. We're holding him to a completely reasonably high standard because as a former Senior Officer he should have known, understood and accepted the military ethos about honour and valour especially since he's the person making policy for the warriors he expects Canadians to hold to those same standards.

TBH, the only honourable thing for this man to do would be to resign his position in the cabinet and sit as just another Liberal MP. He's disgraced his former profession and his position as MND and if he was still in uniform he'd be facing some very serious charges.

I'm not accusing you of holding him to a different standard of behaviour. I'm accusing you of holding him to a different standard of punishment.

Coates would not have to resign if that happened today vs over 30 years ago. Considering that nowadays hardly a day goes by without yet another conservative pervert in the news, just being in a titty bar seems downright gentlemanly of right-winger.

And I'm genuinely curious about the assertion that someone in uniform would be facing serious charges. The lies weren't under oath or falsified qualifications on a job application.

[BeaverFever]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Soldiers don't get to go on strike. They don't have freedom of speech either.

My point exactly. Worst case scenario, the troops will continue to carry out their duties with professionalism as they always do, while despising the politcian in charge of DND. Won't be the first time. Or the last time.

[Canadian_Mind]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Soldiers don't get to go on strike. They don't have freedom of speech either.

My point exactly. Worst case scenario, the troops will continue yo carry out their duties with professionalism as they always di, while despising the politcian in placed in charge of DND. Won't be the first time. Or the last time.

So basically, we get to dismiss their legitimate concerns and critisims because they can't do jack shit about it?

[BeaverFever]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Soldiers don't get to go on strike. They don't have freedom of speech either.

My point exactly. Worst case scenario, the troops will continue yo carry out their duties with professionalism as they always di, while despising the politcian in placed in charge of DND. Won't be the first time. Or the last time.

So basically, we get to dismiss their legitimate concerns and critisims because they can't do jack shit about it?

No, not dismiss. However, it's not their job to decide whether the MND resigns or not.

[martin14]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Soldiers don't get to go on strike. They don't have freedom of speech either.

My point exactly. Worst case scenario, the troops will continue yo carry out their duties with professionalism as they always di, while despising the politcian in placed in charge of DND. Won't be the first time. Or the last time.

So basically, we get to dismiss their legitimate concerns and critisims because they can't do jack shit about it?

BF only cares about how his Lieberal Party looks, he could care less
about the average soldier, or what the military cares about anything.

[Canadian_Mind]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

My point exactly. Worst case scenario, the troops will continue yo carry out their duties with professionalism as they always di, while despising the politcian in placed in charge of DND. Won't be the first time. Or the last time.

So basically, we get to dismiss their legitimate concerns and critisims because they can't do jack shit about it?

No, not dismiss. However, it's not their job to decide whether the MND resigns or not.

Nope. But it is our job as Canadian citizens to recognise that a wrongful act has been committed, an act that arguably makes our men and women in uniform victims, and as such we should be demanding that there are repercussions for this wrongful act.

[Freakinoldguy]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Someone said we wouldn't be asking for Mr. Sajjian's resignations if he was a Conservative. Well allow me to point out that, the last Conservative Minister of National Defense who screwed up like this man did had the decency to "RESIGN". Anybody else remember one Mr. Robert C. Coates and his visit to a peeler bar? An infraction I'd consider much less heinous than stealing someone else's valour.

Other people are saying we're holding this person to an unrealistically high standard because he's a Liberal. Well sorry, but once again you're wrong. We're holding him to a completely reasonably high standard because as a former Senior Officer he should have known, understood and accepted the military ethos about honour and valour especially since he's the person making policy for the warriors he expects Canadians to hold to those same standards.

TBH, the only honourable thing for this man to do would be to resign his position in the cabinet and sit as just another Liberal MP. He's disgraced his former profession and his position as MND and if he was still in uniform he'd be facing some very serious charges.

I'm not accusing you of holding him to a different standard of behaviour. I'm accusing you of holding him to a different standard of punishment.

Coates would not have to resign if that happened today vs over 30 years ago. Considering that nowadays hardly a day goes by without yet another conservative pervert in the news, just being in a titty bar seems downright gentlemanly of right-winger.

And I'm genuinely curious about the assertion that someone in uniform would be facing serious charges. The lies weren't under oath or falsified qualifications on a job application.

If you're trying to get me to say that he wouldn't have been charged if he'd been wearing a uniform you'd better try on hell of alot harder because, like your assertion that all Liberal lies should go unpunished you're dead wrong about the military, again.

Unlike in civilian courts our friend Mr. Sajjian doesn't have to be under oath or be falsifying a job application to be charged for lying. All he has to do is what he did and he'd have been charged under Section 92 of the National Defense Act, Scandalous Conduct by Officers

103.25 - SCANDALOUS CONDUCT BY OFFICERS

(1) Section 92 of the National Defence Act provides:

"92. Every officer who behaves in a scandalous manner unbecoming an officer is guilty of an offence and on conviction shall suffer dismissal with disgrace from Her Majesty's service or dismissal from Her Majesty's service."

And guess what. Unlike in Trudeau's Liberal Utopia, in the military "lying" to an entire nation about false heroism is an indictable offense to be punished, not rewarded. But, then again if the PM actually fired all the members of his Gov't that lied he'd have a lot smaller cabinet and we as a country would have no Prime Minister.

As for your claim that I want a different standard of punishment for this liar. I'll explain myself one more time. I want "all" the "lying members of Parliament", Ministers of National Defense included removed from their positions of authority like Robert C. Coates was. As for your red herring that it's a different time, allow me to point out that for most of society, morals have no expiry date. So, you may be able to stomach him lying about his unearned valour but, that doesn't mean the rest of us have to.

[rickc]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Someone said we wouldn't be asking for Mr. Sajjian's resignations if he was a Conservative. Well allow me to point out that, the last Conservative Minister of National Defense who screwed up like this man did had the decency to "RESIGN". Anybody else remember one Mr. Robert C. Coates and his visit to a peeler bar? An infraction I'd consider much less heinous than stealing someone else's valour.

Other people are saying we're holding this person to an unrealistically high standard because he's a Liberal. Well sorry, but once again you're wrong. We're holding him to a completely reasonably high standard because as a former Senior Officer he should have known, understood and accepted the military ethos about honour and valour especially since he's the person making policy for the warriors he expects Canadians to hold to those same standards.

TBH, the only honourable thing for this man to do would be to resign his position in the cabinet and sit as just another Liberal MP. He's disgraced his former profession and his position as MND and if he was still in uniform he'd be facing some very serious charges.

I'm not accusing you of holding him to a different standard of behaviour. I'm accusing you of holding him to a different standard of punishment.

Coates would not have to resign if that happened today vs over 30 years ago. Considering that nowadays hardly a day goes by without yet another conservative pervert in the news, just being in a titty bar seems downright gentlemanly of right-winger.

And I'm genuinely curious about the assertion that someone in uniform would be facing serious charges. The lies weren't under oath or falsified qualifications on a job application.

If you're trying to get me to say that he wouldn't have been charged if he'd been wearing a uniform you'd better try on hell of alot harder because, like your assertion that all Liberal lies should go unpunished you're dead wrong about the military, again.

Unlike in civilian courts our friend Mr. Sajjian doesn't have to be under oath or be falsifying a job application to be charged for lying. All he has to do is what he did and he'd have been charged under Section 92 of the National Defense Act, Scandalous Conduct by Officers

103.25 - SCANDALOUS CONDUCT BY OFFICERS

(1) Section 92 of the National Defence Act provides:

"92. Every officer who behaves in a scandalous manner unbecoming an officer is guilty of an offence and on conviction shall suffer dismissal with disgrace from Her Majesty's service or dismissal from Her Majesty's service."

And guess what. Unlike in Trudeau's Liberal Utopia, in the military "lying" to an entire nation about false heroism is an indictable offense to be punished, not rewarded. But, then again if the PM actually fired all the members of his Gov't that lied he'd have a lot smaller cabinet and we as a country would have no Prime Minister.

As for your claim that I want a different standard of punishment for this liar. I'll explain myself one more time. I want "all" the "lying members of Parliament", Ministers of National Defense included removed from their positions of authority like Robert C. Coates was. As for your red herring that it's a different time, allow me to point out that for most of society, morals have no expiry date. So, you may be able to stomach him lying about his unearned valour but, that doesn't mean the rest of us have to.

I would rep if I could!!!

[BeaverFever]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

[

Nope. But it is our job as Canadian citizens to recognise that a wrongful act has been committed, an act that arguably makes our men and women in uniform victims, and as such we should be demanding that there are repercussions for this wrongful act.

Victims is a strong word! I thought conservatives don't believe that speech can cause "victims."

Having to resign is just an extreme and unprecedented response.

[BeaverFever]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

If you're trying to get me to say that he wouldn't have been charged if he'd been wearing a uniform you'd better try on hell of alot harder because, like your assertion that all Liberal lies should go unpunished you're dead wrong about the military, again.

Unlike in civilian courts our friend Mr. Sajjian doesn't have to be under oath or be falsifying a job application to be charged for lying. All he has to do is what he did and he'd have been charged under Section 92 of the National Defense Act, Scandalous Conduct by Officers

103.25 - SCANDALOUS CONDUCT BY OFFICERS

(1) Section 92 of the National Defence Act provides:

"92. Every officer who behaves in a scandalous manner unbecoming an officer is guilty of an offence and on conviction shall suffer dismissal with disgrace from Her Majesty's service or dismissal from Her Majesty's service."

And guess what. Unlike in Trudeau's Liberal Utopia, in the military "lying" to an entire nation about false heroism is an indictable offense to be punished, not rewarded. But, then again if the PM actually fired all the members of his Gov't that lied he'd have a lot smaller cabinet and we as a country would have no Prime Minister.

As for your claim that I want a different standard of punishment for this liar. I'll explain myself one more time. I want "all" the "lying members of Parliament", Ministers of National Defense included removed from their positions of authority like Robert C. Coates was. As for your red herring that it's a different time, allow me to point out that for most of society, morals have no expiry date. So, you may be able to stomach him lying about his unearned valour but, that doesn't mean the rest of us have to.

I think you need to review what "red herring" means because that's twice you've misused the term im this thread, while dropping a gigantic red herring yourself.

Namely your red herring is that you cite S.92 as if it's concrete proof of your opinion but it's just your pure speculation and personal opinion that Sajjan's comments would be judged a violation of that provision. That provision is most commonly used for officers caught cheating on exams, fucking a subordinate, having an affair with a colleagues spouse, etc. Or as a catch-all "add-on" charge when an officer has been charged with other offences

As for your claim that "morals have no expury date" I guess you haven't noticed that social values do indeed CONSTANTLY change over time. Look at same sex marriage and marijuana as but 2 easy examples. People are a lot less prudish and pearl-clutching than they were 30 years ago. Morals also move in the other direction too. It used to be socially acceptable to beat your wife and own slaves and overt workplace sexual harassment was commonplace right up into the1990s (or up to today if you work at Fox News lol).

[PluggyRug]

$1:

Harjit Sajjan pulls out of fundraiser for veterans over ‘scheduling issue’ amid Afghan battle controversy

Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press | May 2, 2017 4:20 PM ET

Harjit Sajjan has bowed out of an annual fundraising event originally set up for veterans of the war in Afghanistan, an event whose main beneficiaries include military personnel returning from combat.

The embattled defence minister is, however, pressing ahead with a speech Wednesday to members of the Conference of Defence Associations Institute, billed by his department as an update on “the state of Canadian defence.”

Sajjan had been scheduled to speak at the 8th annual “To the ‘Stan and Back” event Tuesday, but founder Cheri Elliott said she was told a scheduling conflict had arisen and he would not be able to attend.

“The official reason for his not being able to attend is he was asked to be elsewhere at the time. That is what I was told,” said Elliott, who is the mother of a serving Canadian Forces member.

The minister spoke at the same event last year, which raises money for service members as well as first responders dealing with PTSD and other psychological trauma.

Sajjan, a former soldier and veteran of the Afghan war, was back in question period Tuesday, where he again met sustained fire for having exaggerated his role in Operation Medusa, a key battle involving the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan in 2006.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stood alongside his embattled defence minister as interim Conservative leader Rona Ambrose picked up where she had left off, again calling for Sajjan’s resignation.

Ambrose accused Sajjan during question period of having embellished his military record for political gain, while Trudeau praised Sajjan’s “exemplary record” as a soldier, police officer and minister.

The prime minister also rebuffed NDP calls to open an inquiry into the treatment of detainees in Afghanistan, which Sajjan had earlier refused.

The partisan bickering on Tuesday extended beyond question period, as the Liberals pushed back a so-called opposition day that they had promised to the Conservatives for Thursday.

Conservative House leader Candice Bergen accused the government of postponing the opposition day until next week to avoid a full day of questions about Sajjan’s comments and conduct.

Central to that would have been a non-binding motion the Tories say they intended to table and which would have seen MPs vote on whether they still had confidence in the defence minister.

“The minister of defence has to resign, and this is a motion that would have forced the prime minister and the minister of defence to address this,” Bergen said.

“It would have been all day on Thursday, and instead they’re running scared.”

Government House Leader Bardish Chagger, however, said the scheduled opposition day had to be postponed because more time was needed this week to debate a bill that would implement the budget.

“There’s a slight tweaking taking place in the calendar because we do need to debate certain pieces of legislation,” she said.

Meanwhile, a watchdog group that tracks military imposters says many veterans are still upset with Sajjan despite his apology Monday, but that Ambrose went to far in accusing him of “stolen valour.”

Scheduling issue.

[BeaverFever]

Yep, he's definitely hiding

[PluggyRug]

Bravely bold Sir Harjit
Rode forth from Camelot.
He was not afraid to die,
Oh brave Sir Harjit...